GR L 3190; (December, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑3190
FACTS:
– Petitioners‑appellees (Asuncion Albert y MayorAlgo and Purificacion Albert y MayorAlgo) filed a petition on 10 Nov 1904 in the Court of Land Registration to have a parcel of land in Calle Barredo, Malate, Manila, and the house thereon, registered in their name.
– They asserted purchase from Narciso Mayuga, Felix Bautista, Teodorico Bautista, Sebastian Santos and Vicente Albert, substantiated by an unregistered deed.
– Respondents‑appellants (Martiniano Punsalan, Saturnina Punsalan and Catalina Sy‑Trapco) contested the registration, claiming that the land had been delivered by their father, Julian Punsalan, to Father Teodorico Bautista in 1879 on a pacto de retro (sale with condition of redemption after the vendor’s death).
– The original contract, dated 18 Oct 1879, stipulated that the land was mortgaged for ₱130‑₱134 and could be redeemed after Julian Punsalan’s death.
– Julian Punsalan died in 1890; Father Bautista died in 1895. The respondents alleged they had attempted to redeem the land in 1893‑1895 and again in 1901‑1904 but never succeeded.
– The trial court held the contract to be a pacto de retro and, applying the Civil Code’s provisions on the period for redemption (Art. 1508, 1509, 1518; transitory Art. 1976), concluded that the four‑year (or ten‑year, if death is deemed the deadline) period had expired long before any redemption attempt. Hence, ownership vested in Father Bautista and his heirs, and the petitioners’ title was affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether the 1879 contract between Julian Punsalan and Father Teodorico Bautista constituted a pacto de retro and, if so, whether Julian Punsalan (or his heirs) effected redemption within the statutory period prescribed by the Civil Code.
RULING:
– The Supreme Court affirmed that the 1879 agreement was a pacto de retro as expressly labeled by the parties.
– Applying Art. 1508 (four‑year period absent an express term) and, alternatively, the ten‑year term measured to the vendor’s death, the Court held that the redemption period had already lapsed before any lawful exercise of the right by Julian Punsalan’s heirs.
– Consequently, the title of the land passed irrevocably to Father Bautista and his successors, and the lower court’s decision in favor of the petitioners‑appellees was affirmed with costs.